STEPHEN JAY GOULD SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF 1 of 4

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN posted a "quote" from Stephen Jay Gould which purports to show that Gould repudiated his own life's work and, indeed, the theory of evolution. I thought at first that this might have been an idea at least honestly come by. But it appears as the argument develops, that HISTRUTHBEKNOWN is well aware that the quote was taken out of context and does not represent Gould's thought in any substantive way.

The quoted essay can be found here: http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution%20as%20Fact%20and%20Theory%20...

Stephen Jay Gould , "Evolution, Fact and Theory"1981

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Stephen
• Jay
• Gould
• evolution
• punctuated
• equalibrium
• transitional
• fossils

[uncljoedoc]

Darwin stated that the author of Vestiges of Creation would have us think that some plant gave birth to a misseltoe, and some bird to woodpecker perfect as we now see them, but this seems to be no explanation because it leaves the question of the case of co-adaptations untouched.

At what time even to the earliest infinitesimal moment of an emergent species is it not in a co-adaptation? Doesn't this mean that the whole of nature is connected as a plenitude from the earliest-just quoting Darwin

[Largo64]

@uncljoedoc I'm adding back the quote you deleted because I want to answer it. "To reject a mystery simply because it is a mystery is the most besotted form of human pride. -- Edw. Forbes"

I don't reject creationism because it is a mystery. Every science is filled with mystery. The difference is that creationism asserts the mystery only and accepts no explanation. Science seeks to explain what can be observed, as well as what can be inferred from what is observed. Science is superior, IMHO.

[Teghead]

You yourself haven't presented the facts too well! Gould was a snail biologist, not a geologist.

Man the creationism argument is so boring and their tactics so obvious, is this sort of discourse still necessary in USA?

[Largo64]

@Teghead Gould was a paleontologist who served also as a Professor of Zoology, and Professor of Geology at Harvard University, and also as curator for Invertebrate Paleontology at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Where you got "snail biologist" is a mystery to me. I imagine snail biology could be part of zoology, all right. But Gould was certainly not so limited. He was more than qualified to expound upon evolution.

[Teghead]

@Largo64

I'm glad that we agree on your last point.

"Most of Gould's empirical research was based on the land snail genera Poecilozonites and Cerion" - Wiki

Steve Jones is also a snail biologist, and has some great book and public lectures on evolution and genetics.

Whatever made you think snail biologist was derogatory I'll never understand. =p

To call him a "geologist" as in the video is quite wrong though, whichever department he was associated with.

[Largo64]

@Teghead You know, I just thought that a person who would be hired by Harvard University as a professor of geology could fairly be called a geologist. But that's just me. I'll just consider that this nit has been picked and defer to you. ;^)

[uncljoedoc]

@Largo64 just to say, we want to have a system of the universe; we find that as we understand, there is always, always the further question. There is horizon that ever recedes push as we may the envelope of what may be understood back; we always find a 'residuum' of mystery. But we want our system to be closed and thus there is a science that includes the residuum and it is metaphysics and the awe that is felt leads to theology.

[uncljoedoc]

@Largo64 I am not arguing for creationism.;Darwin deftly turned attention to another aspect of the question. The question of co-adaptations was left untouched if one were to simply assume that woodpecker and misseltoe was produced 'perfect as we now see them'. He never said creationism was stupid. I deleted the 'besotted pride' not to sound offensive. But I think the Darwinists of today do not penetrate the question and oversimplify. Darwin was highly motivated by such as Paley and Chambers.

[Teghead]

@Largo64

Lol, great retort. =D

When considering his life's work though, 'geologist' just doesn't describe him. I''m not sure why Harvard gave him a professorship of Geology, and not Paleontology. All his other titles and awards are biology/evolution. Paleontology might be kinda had to class, being on the border of biology and geology, but Gould was certainly more of a biologist, and the subject of paleontology is much more biology than it is geology.

A snail guy through and through.

[Largo64]

@circusOFprecision I think Gould would have been the first to acknowledge that the process is not wholly understood, and probably never will be. But I was saying here that the assertion by HISTRUTHBEKNOWN that Gould was repudiating his own and others' work was false and dishonest.

[circusOFprecision]

Gould believed that the evidence proved Neo-Darwinian evolution to be false. And in fact it does. Evolution is a vague mechanistic process built upon metaphysical assumptions (apparent design, not actual design). The simple scientific fact is that life forms do "evolve" towards higher complexity, but it happens in huge "quantum" leaps. Life is not slave to genes. Life learns and wills itself forward through a guided, calculated process, not "random" and "lucky mistakes".